September 28, 2008
In the next few weeks Californians will be inundated with media messages about the importance of allowing same-sex marriages. Voters will see TV ads telling them that homosexual love deserves “equality” with heterosexual love. Voters will hear radio
reports about how all gays and lesbians want is to have the same “rights” as all married couples. And the main message that will be repeated is that allowing homosexuals to marry will have no impact on your marriage or your family-so what’s the harm
in giving gays their chance to marry?
Although on the surface these arguments appear convincing, they don’t tell the whole truth. Homosexual marriage will have a direct, intrusive and damaging effect on your family.Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot. Books like “Heather has Two Mommies”or “Daddy’s Wedding” will be used to teach kindergartners about homosexual relationships.
When parents in Boston complained about an eighth-grade teacher instructing students about gay sex, the teacher responded, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.” Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws.
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that medical professionals may not defer treatment to another professional based on their religious objections. In other words, Christians and those with moral beliefs must check their conscience at the door when they arrive at work. The same case law will apply to churches. Pastors will no longer be allowed to refuse marrying
homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies. A New Mexico photography company is being prosecuted for refusing to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of a homosexual couple. The full force of the government will
used to make citizens publicly accept homosexuality.
Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and Party B.” A young couple in Placer County wrote the terms “bride” and “groom” on their marriage license, which was returned from the state as an “unacceptable alteration.”
A husband and wife are legally referred to now as Party A and Party B according to the California government.
By redefining marriage, every marriage has already been affected.
The role of parents will be diminished. The family unit is already under assault with no-fault divorce, acceptance of single parenthood, and nanny government usurping the role of fathers. Homosexual marriage worsens this trend by giving government
approval to single-sex parenting. Children need both a mother and a father. By approving homosexual marriage, government and society denies children their right and need for both parents.
These are just a few of the negative, damaging consequences of allowing homosexualmarriage in our society. When you encounter a neighbor, church member, work associate, or family member who says, “I’m not a bigot-and homosexual marriage won’t affect
me,” remind them of just how much it will impact their family and all families. This is not an issue of bigotry, but of ensuring marriage isn’t redefined by four activist judges. Wanting children to be raised by both of their parents isn’t bigoted either. What’s truly bigoted is telling Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people
of faith that their beliefs must be silenced.
March 4, 2008
Eagle Forum of Sacramento
The voice was loud and filled with anger. No matter what Michael Medved said to him, the caller had his ideas about the Boy Scouts of America. The group was hateful and must be eliminated. The caller was homosexual.
There was no tolerance in this man’s voice nor in the many that followed. Even though the boy scouts in Pennsylvania had done remarkable things for the youth, these callers said it would be better for the entire organization to be dissolved than for them to continue doing good deeds. The suggestion to start their own Rainbow Scouts was unacceptable. Their desire is for the traditional organization to acknowledge that homosexuality is normal and even in line with “natural” law.
Each voice sent chills down my body. Hatred radiated through the radio and I knew that these callers had an agenda and nothing would stop them. Corporations, schools, government and churches have compromised to meet the needs and wants of homosexuals. Now there stands two groups who will not compromise; the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts of America.
How supportive will we be for their cause? Most people will just say in their usual apathetic voice, “Isn’t that a shame. They were such a wonderful group for children.” Then they will move on with their busy lives.
The voices filled with anger will continue. The owners of these voices will not hush until their lifestyle is accepted as natural and normal. Homosexual activists will trample everything in their way. Some churches still stand in dignity and the family unit is still somewhat strong on marriage between one man and one woman. But civil unions, partnerships, and same-sex benefits are commonly accepted.
Our last stand is the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts of America. As they stand their ground, the homosexual voices grow louder letting America know that they will not be silenced. They have no tolerance and the ugliness of the act to destroy this group of Scouts in Pennsylvania is truly the voice of hate.
I asked myself, as I read the attached article, how I missed this news in December. Was it ever a big news story? People I talked with today, had not heard of it either. But once again, diversity addiction has never been recognized for what it is, or for its incredible power to orchestrate change.
The homosexuals have won. We cannot erase this new form of love that allows the closing of the boy scouts’ building, over natural law and God’s way? We can, however, take action, and save any voice of liberty that we may have left!
February 13, 2007
Transcription of Phyllis Schlafly’s Testimony
Before Arkansas State Agency & Governmental Affairs House Committee
on ERA Bill, (HJR1002)February 7, 2007
(In less than ten minutes)
Schlafly Bio: Phyllis Schlafly was recently named one of the one hundred most important women of the twentieth century by the Ladies’ Home Journal. She is a Constitutional lawyer and president of Eagle Forum which has chapters in every state. Her syndicated column appears in one hundred newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show, "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on forty stations. Schlafly is the author of twenty books and has testified before more than fifty Congresisonal and State Legislative committees. The mother of six children, Mrs.Schlafly was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year. Friends and foes of Schlafly give her credit for galvanizing the grassroots movement that defeated ERA in its ten-year battle from 1972to 1982 when Presidents of both parties and the media had all endorsed it. [And all these feats were accomplished without an Equal Rights Amendment]
Transcription of Testimony:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing us to hear a non constituent. I have a special place in my heart for Arkansas because my husband’s family owned the Mountain Valley Spring in Hot Springs from 1900 to 1987; and my husband brought me there on our honeymoon. I still drink Moutain Valley water, now owned by Arkansas people, and it is the finest water in the world. So thank you.
Now you have heard about an hour and half of advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment; but I note that you didn’t hear about one single law, federal or state, that discriminates against women that this amendment will remedy. I note that you didn’t hear a single benefit that women will get out of the Equal Rights Amendment. This thing was debated for 10 years, from 1972 to 1982; and it was rejected by fifteen states outright and five more that rescinded and changed their mind.
I think the main reason it was rescinded and rejected was that it is a fraud. It pretends to help women, but it does nothing for women; and they are not able to show any benefit, any correction of law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do. You know that the amendment does not put women in the Constitution, and it does not put gender in the constitution. It puts sex in the Constitution. Now we are at the mercy of the judges. The Equal Rights Amendment does not say whether it is the sex you are or the sex you do. We leave all those decisions up to the judges.
Now in looking for what the Equal Rights Amendment will do, I look to the best top authority on that subject. And the leading lawyer in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment those years was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now on the United States Supreme Court. She wrote a book, a 230 page book, to tell exactly how the Equal Rights Amendment will affect federal law; and she is very explicit in it. I think there probably is no higher authority about what it will actually do.
What it will do is make all our laws sex neutral. Now we have the matter of the draft. Now nobody denies that if you have strict scrutiny you are going to have women not only subject to the draft, when and if there is a draft, but also subject to combat. We know women are exempted from infantry combat and submarines today. Those differences are there. Now a very powerful Democrat today, Congressman Charlie Rangel has got his bill to reinstate the draft; and, of course, it is sex neutral. I am going to do everything I can to prevent his bill from passing. But if it passed, there is no question about the effect of ERA. It would treat women exactly the same as men, and women do not want to be treated the same as men in the military and in combat.
Now among other things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this, and what she doesn’t say, is that it is going to have no effect on the Constitution itself because the Constitution is already sex neutral. The Constitution does not say men are created equal. That is in the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately you are not amending the Declaration of Independence. We are talking about the Constitution. And the Constitution uses exclusively sex neutral terms, we the people, citizens, residents, inhabitants, president, ambassador, representative. Women have every Constitutional right that men have.
Also this book makes clear that it has nothing to do with employment. It is not going to give women a raise or make them equal in the board rooms or in the legislatures because our employment laws are already sex neutral; and this book makes that clear.
However, there are some differences. One of the differences is the effect it would have on homemakers in this country. One of the most offensive things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this book is that the concept of dependent wife must be eliminated from the code. What does that mean? The social security system rests on the concept of the dependent wife. I get my social security based on my husband’s income over the years, and I am sure that is true of many women here today. Social security is a very pro-women institution because it gives the benefit to the dependent wife, the dependent wife who is not, herself, in the workforce. According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that is a concept that must be eliminated from the code under ERA. This book was written to describe how ERA will affect federal laws.
And then she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] goes into how it will change the words when you say you can’t discriminate on account of sex. She gives a whole list of words that will have to be changed. And among the words that would have to be deleted from the federal code are husband and wife. Now that is a direct attack on the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Feminists don’t like that. They want to put us into a sex neutral world, and it certainly would have a direct effect on the Federal DOMA.
She [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] makes very clear that the ERA would require treating sex like we treat race. That is one of their arguments. And it would require everything that is separated according to sex to be sex integrated. Now, she specifically says that this would include the Scouts. It is discriminatory to have Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. They would have to be put together. She says fraternities and sororities would have to be combined. She says even prisons would have to be sex integrated.
There are all kinds of mischief she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] has in this book under her name, in a book published and paid for by the US government. She makes arguments that I never dared to make, that it will wipe out the laws against prostitution and the laws against bigamy – that it would reduce the age of consent to 12; She even goes after Mother’s Day because that would be sex discriminatory.
Of course, in the matter of marriage, it would open up the courts to all kinds of litigation by the gay rights movement which is working very hard on every type of judge they can find to give them whatever they want to have. Again, the Equal Rights Amendment says you can’t discriminate on account of sex, and that is what you are talking about. If you deny a marriage license to a man and a man, you have discriminated on account of sex. All of the highest legal authorities from Harvard and Yale have all said that the equal rights amendment would okay same sex marriage.
I was on the platform with the great Senator Sam Irvin, considered then the leading legal authority in the Senate, the great Watergate Senator, who said the only people who would profit by the Equal Rights Amendment would be the homosexuals; and you could have all kinds of litigation on that.
On the matter of abortion, we know that the New Mexico case is very clear. The argument of the feminists is abortion is something that happens only to women; therefore, if you deny any rights or any funding on abortion, you have discriminated on account of sex within the meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment. Now we do not have nineteen states with state ERA’s. There are only six of the states that have ERA’s in the same language as the proposed federal ERA. One of those is New Mexico, and that is why New Mexico said that it is discrimination to deny funding for abortion in New Mexico.
Another one of those states is Hawaii, which is where they okayed same sex marriage based on the state’s ERA. Hawaii had to pass another Constitutional amendment saying in effect, "No, we didn’t mean that."
So there are all kinds of problems that come along, and I think it would move the whole area of family law to the federal government because of Section II. Section II says the Congress will have the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation and there are all kinds of family property laws, divorce, child custody, that would then become federal matters under the ERA.
This country wisely rejected it after long debate, and I think what it comes down to is how the judges interpret it. And we have no confidence – you asked for assurance of what the judges are going to do – we don’t know what they are going to do.
But in any event, I think the country made a very good decision in voting it down in a ten-year battle that went on all across the country; and I hope that we a leave it decently buried.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for listening.
Chairman – Thank you very much and without pausing said, Seeing there are no questions (then goes to next witness)
The committee defeated the ERA bill by one vote, 10 to 10. They needed 11 votes to get it out of committee.
This article can be read online at this link: http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm
December 12, 2006
Gay demands shift from equality to special endorsement
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
In current debates over gay relationships and their position in society, we’ve moved beyond a plea for acceptance and equality to an increasingly strident claim of homosexual superiority and a demand for special status and endorsement.
In a recent syndicated column about Pastor Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who confessed to a three year affair with a gay, drug-dealing prostitute, Ellen Goodman wrote of "people who heard a man wounded by the culture of demonization. Their sympathy was for a man primed for repression and deception by the teaching of homosexuality as a sin… More gays, more friends, families, co-workers have come to believe that gayness is not a choice, let alone a sin."
In other words, some tender-hearted Americans feel ready to forgive, even to embrace, a religious leader who routinely paid a sex-for-hire hustler to cheat in a Denver hotel room on his wife and five kids while getting high on illegal and dangerous methamphetamines. Try to imagine that Haggard had engaged in his extra-marital adventures with a female hooker, rather than a middle-aged call boy. Would anyone have come forward to express "sympathy" for the man or to view him as a sad victim of "repression"?
By the same token, former New Jersey Democrat governor James McGreevy recently wrote a best-selling book called "Confession," describing his risky and degrading encounters in men’s rooms and back alleys. He even spoke of inviting his male lover (placed on the state payroll despite a total absence of qualifications) into his marital bed in the governor’s mansion while his wife struggled in the hospital with a troubled pregnancy. Oprah Winfrey (and others) now hail McGreevy for his "courage" in speaking so openly and proudly of his newly-discovered status as a "gay American." Would any public figure receive similarly indulgent treatment after confessing serial infidelity with a member of the opposite sex?
Finally, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, made headlines as the first openly gay clergyman to reach such a leadership position in his denomination. The media paid little attention, however, to the fact that Bishop Robinson (who is currently undergoing rehab treatment for alcoholism) had initially embraced his gay identity when he left his wife and three children for a relationship with another man. Would the Episcopal Church or any other significant religious body so readily grant a position of spiritual leadership to a priest who had abandoned his family for an extra-marital affair with a partner of the opposite sex?
In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same-sex attraction-giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression- coming to terms with "who they really are."
But what about those aging heterosexuals who may also suddenly discover– at age sixty, say-that they’ve been repressing their true identities? Couldn’t they also argue that it seemed suddenly inauthentic to remain trapped with a sagging partner of similar age, when a powerful, undeniable inner voice and the evolutionary imperative demanded they connect with nubile twenty-somethings eager for experienced and wealthy companionship?
In fact, every study of human sexuality would suggest that far more men feel tempted to heed their deep-seated, undeniable authentic desires to cheat with other (particularly younger) women than feel drawn into relationships with other men. Does this greater incidence of heterosexual temptation make it more – or less– "natural" and worthy of respect than homosexual impulses? The tendency to forgive, or even endorse, same-sex attractions while condemning the vastly more common opposite gender desires, amounts to the granting of a preferential position to homosexuality.
November 14, 2006
Gays Who Want To Censor Free Speech
Nov. 8, 2006 by Phyllis Schlafly
Same-sex marriage is not the only goal of the gay rights movement. It’s becoming clear that another goal is the suppression of Americans’ First Amendment right to criticize the gay agenda.
The gay lobby tried a broadside attempt to censor criticism by passing a national "hate crimes" law. Fortunately, Congress didn’t pass that law, but gay activists are obviously trying to achieve much the same effect through political pressure and intimidation.
Scott Bloch, the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in the Bush Administration, has been targeted for termination because he removed "sexual orientation" from the list of anti-discrimination laws protecting employment at federal agencies. Bloch discovered that his Clinton-appointed predecessor, Elaine Kaplan, had unilaterally inserted "sexual orientation" in the list without any statutory authorization, so he removed it.
The gay lobby retaliated, instigating five investigations against Bloch. After all five cleared him of any wrongdoing, the response by the gay lobby was to initiate a sixth investigation.
Reportedly, Bloch has privately been told to resign, twice suggesting that he might be fired if he doesn’t. Letters from supporters caused the White House to back off before the election, but it is apparent that the Bush Administration has no stomach for this fight and hopes Bloch will go quietly.
There have actually been very few complaints against the Bush Administration about job discrimination against homosexuals. Bush just appointed open homosexual Mark Dybul as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, and when he was sworn in with the rank of ambassador, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised his "wonderful family" and referred to his partner’s mother as Dybul’s "mother-in-law."
Luis Padilla, an employee of a large corporation in Virginia, put this message on the rear window of his pickup truck: "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7." His bosses ordered him to remove it because some people said it offended them.
Padilla then parked his truck on what he thought (apparently incorrectly) was outside of company property, but he was fired anyway. After a couple of state legislators took up his cause, the company reinstated him.
Robert J. Smith, who served (at a small salary) as Maryland’s representative on the Washington Metro transit board, mentioned his religious views against homosexual conduct during an appearance on a cable television program. Although probably few saw the show, gay activists demanded that he be fired, and Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich complied.
Michael Campion, a psychologist with the Minneapolis Police Department, was suspended because of his past affiliation with a group critical of the gay lifestyle, despite reports of a good job performance. The city of Springfield, Illinois, had previously terminated his services for the same reason.
If Americans don’t resist such assaults on free speech, we may be headed down the Canadian road. Dozens of Vancouver postal workers just refused to deliver mail they called "homophobic."
In Yale University’s student newspaper, a columnist recently described that institution as "really, really gay. Like, totally gay." Yet, when one email expressed a dissenting view on Yale’s gay pride day, gay activists demanded reprisals against the dissenter.
Middlebury College now invites applicants to indicate if they are gay. The assistant director of admissions explained that gay students bring "a unique quality" to the college, which he said tries hard not "to be too homogeneous."
The public schools are a major battleground in the gays’ efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association (NEA) passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘respect’ instead of ‘tolerance’" of the gay lifestyle.
Taking their demands for censorship into the courts, the gays have been winning. After the Poway High School near San Diego endorsed the gay project called "Day of Silence," the Ninth Circuit upheld the school in forbidding student Tyler Harper to wear a T-shirt with the words "homosexuality is shameful, Romans 1:27."
The dissenting judge pointed out the intolerance of those who claim they want tolerance for minority views. But Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who sided with the school, wrote that Tyler’s defenders "still don’t get the message."
I am getting the message: for Judge Reinhardt, gay rights means intolerance for free speech.
Clinton apologists once defended his scandalous conduct by saying it was "only about sex." It’s increasingly clear that the gay ideology is about far more than sex; it assaults our fundamental right to free speech.
July 24, 2006
Sexologist’s Death Spotlights Lies Behind ‘Gender Identity’ Theories
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
July 21, 2006
(AgapePress) – A pro-family leader says the recent death of prominent psychologist and sexologist Dr. John Money, Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins University highlights the faulty foundations of the so-called "gender identity" movement.
After Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Money — who died earlier this month, one day before his 85th birthday — was perhaps the best known and most influential sexologist ever. He is said to have laid the foundation for the transgender movement by starting the gender identity program at Johns Hopkins.
But critics like Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute claim both Kinsey and Money relied on faulty research and had a "no limits" view of human sexuality. And both, the pro-family spokesman notes, have left an unfortunate legacy of medical misinformation and misguided psychological theories, all based on falsehoods with tragic consequences for modern society.
Knight says Money is particularly notorious for his role in the case of David Reimer, a baby boy whose parents were convinced, after a seriously bungled circumcision, to turn their son into a daughter. At the sexologist’s urging, the parents agreed to have their son surgically rendered anatomically female.
Later, the child received estrogen injections and was raised as a girl under Money’s supervision at the Psychohormonal Research Unit at Johns Hopkins. This so-called "gender reassignment," which was a tragedy for the child, was touted as a triumph by the doctor, Knight points out. "John Money," he notes, "for 14 years reported in scientific journals that it had been a complete success, proving that biology has nothing to do with your sexual identity."
Only years afterward was the sad truth revealed, the Culture and Family Institute spokesman explains. "All along, this little boy was yearning to be a boy, did not want to wear dresses, rejected his female identity," he says. "And this came out later in Rolling Stone magazine, and then in a book called As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto — how Money falsified the findings in order to prove that gender is just a construct in your head."
Unfortunately, Knight points out, the doctor’s deception proved widely influential. "The feminists quoted John Money’s articles extensively, saying that maleness and femaleness had nothing to do with your biological self — it’s just who you think you are," he says.
"So it paved the way," the pro-family advocate continues, "for a couple generations of confused people [to be led into] believing that they were born in the wrong bodies." Many of these confused people were "encouraged to undergo even surgery," Knight says. "This is a tragedy."
According to some sources, Money’s misrepresentations of his findings and his unreported failure with David Reimer have led more or less directly to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy at many medical institutions. The well-known sexologist’s ideas have also influenced many teens and adults to try to address their psychological gender-identity confusion with drastic sexual reassignment surgery.
Two year’s ago, Paul McHugh, chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins, expressed distaste for the way many in the psychiatric community have encouraged patients to pursue sexual reassignment. He observed that psychiatrists, instead of counseling people who were questioning their gender identity to visit a surgeon, should have been helping clients restore their actual gender identity.
Gay Behaviors vs. Public Health
By Robert Seidenberg
Published 6/29/2006 12:07:19 AM
"Are you a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977?"
This is one of the questions that all U.S. blood collection facilities must ask when they administer the pre-donation questionnaire to screen potential donors. Anyone answering yes to this question is "indefinitely deferred," or in plain language, banned for life from donating blood. Despite pressure from gay advocates to change it, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has maintained this policy for 22 years. However, the pressure has intensified lately with gay activists successfully stopping college blood drives with cries of "discrimination."
Thus, this past March, the FDA held yet another workshop to review the male-sex-with-male (MSM) policy, and will convene the Blood Product Advisory Committee (BPAC) in mid-July to render an official decision. Based on recommendations made at the workshop, it is very likely that BPAC will finally recommend a modified policy. If they do, gays will claim a victory over "discrimination," and that is all that will be reported in the sound-bite media.
Although the idea that the FDA has been arbitrarily discriminating against gays is nonsense, no one in the biomedical establishment will attempt to counter this assertion because the very purpose of the change is to allay the "perception of discrimination." Whichever new policy is enacted could still essentially be a lifetime ban.
Once we delve below the headlines, we find that far from discriminating against homosexuals, our biomedical establishment has gone out of its way to mollify them, even to the point of compromising public health. While the medical literature on the dangers of homosexual behavior is massive, and readily available on the web if you search for it, it is omitted from literature directed specifically to the public. That the FDA now finds itself in the awkward position of repealing a successful blood-safety policy in order to ward off hysteria over "discrimination," is largely due to the fact that our public health officials have always failed to state plainly that the gay lifestyle is dangerous.
The Policy Debate
Since the late 1990s, responding to pressure from gay advocates, some experts have proposed that the ban could be safely reduced to a rolling five-year period or even a rolling 12-month period. What this means is that the question would be changed to "Are you a male who has had sex, even once, with another male in the past five years [or 12 months]?" A ‘yes’ answer would result in another five-year [or 12-month] deferral. But this debate only underscores the serious risks of homosexual behavior.
First of all, it reflects a unanimous agreement that at least a rolling 12-month deferral is necessary. Second, even the least stringent form of the ban is essentially a life-time ban: With a rolling 12-month deferral, a man who wished to donate blood on a regular basis would have to refrain from homosexual relations for years at a time. Third, the proposals to narrow the ban are based entirely on improvements in blood-testing technology. Proponents of the five-year and 12-month deferrals argue that the window of time when infection could be present but not detected by a laboratory test has been sufficiently reduced to allow for a lower limit. No one has posited that MSM sex is less risky than previously thought.
Yet, despite the political volatility of the subject, the ban has heretofore been retained in its most stringent form. Why? Because, while every version of the deferral offers some protection against circumstances under which a laboratory test may not detect a known pathogen; the longer the deferral, the better the protection against an unknown pathogen. To appreciate this concern, we have to address the question that is never publicly discussed:
What Do Homosexuals Do That Is So Dangerous?
The over-emphasis on condom use for "safe sex" has created the false impression that all sexual behaviors are equally risky. Yet homosexual men use condoms more than heterosexual couples. Nonetheless, homosexuals are a high risk group for a host of illnesses, while among heterosexuals, only prostitutes are considered at high risk.
The cause of concern is the typical behavior in the gay culture. Characteristic behaviors include extreme promiscuity, anal intercourse, and anal-oral contact. Each of these alone is a high risk behavior. Combined, they expose participants to an immeasurable number of viral and bacterial infections.
The media constantly portray the gay lifestyle as parallel to normal heterosexual life, but the lifestyles are not remotely the same. For example, extreme promiscuity occurs in only a small percentage of the general population. According to the National Health and Social Life survey, the average number of lifetime sex partners in the general population is four (six for men, two for women). By comparison, numerous studies show that gay men typically have hundreds of sex partners. The well-known Bell/Weinberg study found that 74 percent of gay men reported having more than 100 partners, 41 percent more than 500 partners, and 28 percent more than 1,000 partners.
As a result of these activities, men who have sex with men (MSM) constitute a high risk group for syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and AIDS. Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which causes anal warts, is almost universal among MSM, and make MSM the highest risk group for anal cancer, with incidence 39 times greater than the general population. MSM are also almost uniquely at risk for a cluster of painful gastrointestinal ailments known collectively as Gay Bowel Syndrome. And this list of ailments peculiar to the gay lifestyle is far from exhaustive.
This brings us back to the key reason why the 1977-to-life ban has been maintained: the concern about unknown pathogens. Just as HIV/AIDS entered the blood supply in the 1980s because it was impossible to have a laboratory test for an undiscovered virus; so it is continually possible that a new, as yet unidentified pathogen, could enter the blood supply. The etiology of transfusion-acquired AIDS was directly correlated with the number of homosexual men in a blood bank’s donor base. Because the homosexual lifestyle continues to be characterized by the high risk behaviors described above, the question remains how a five-year rolling deferral could protect the blood supply from a currently unidentified pathogen that, like HIV, has a 10-15 year incubation period.
This concern has been validated on several occasions; most recently in July 2005, when a new, drug resistant, strain of HIV was discovered in gay men in New York and California. Hemophiliacs, who comprise the only organized group regularly dependent on blood products, remain vehemently opposed to modifying the MSM policy, specifically because of the concern about unknown pathogens. During the 1980s, as a result of transfusion-acquired HIV, life expectancy for hemophiliacs plummeted from 68 to 49 years. The introduction of the MSM donor deferral policy, two years before an HIV screening test could be developed, resulted in a 90 percent reduction in the risk of acquiring HIV by transfusion. Modifying the current policy compromises the most vulnerable transfusion recipients.
Sending the Wrong Message
Putting the transfusion question aside, the biomedical establishment is compromising a much larger group by failing to speak candidly about the dangers of MSM behavior. This failure is evident in the gross discrepancy between blood banking’s internal literature, used to regulate the manufacture of blood products; and its external or public relations, literature, used to inform the public about risk and safety issues.
We would expect consistency in these two types of literature. If, for example, intravenous drug use is identified as a risk behavior in the regulatory literature, we would expect it to be identified as a risk behavior in the public relations literature as well. And in fact, it is. Yet this is not the case with regard to homosexual behavior. Here, instead, the dual literatures are in glaring contradiction to each other.
For example, in a Red Cross educational teen comic book, we are given the specific messages that intravenous drug use is a risk behavior, and that sex without condoms is a risk behavior, but homosexuality is not regarded as a behavior at all; it is "who you are"; and, as the comic book also makes clear, anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant bigot.
In the regulatory literature, on the other hand, MSM is defined as a "high risk behavior" and identity labeling is studiously avoided. Early on in the development of the questionnaire, the FDA discovered that many men who had had some same-sex contact, did not identify themselves as "gay" or "bi." Thus the questionnaire evolved to be strictly behavioral. It does not ask, "Are you gay?" It asks specifically about the behavior, the frequency of behavior ("even one time"), and the time frame in which the behavior occurred ("since 1977"). And, of course, the whole debate over the deferral policy is about time frame, which reflects the underlying knowledge that homosexual behavior, rather than inclination, is what is at issue.
With Hollywood glamorizing gay life, government and religious authorities endorsing it, and our biomedical establishment failing to issue the proper warnings, an increasing number of young men are being drawn to try this behavior. Insanely, the San Francisco Department of Public Health website offers instructions for "safely" engaging in anal intercourse, analingus, even "fisting."
The fact that young men are being sent the wrong message is evident in the continuous stream of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that show sharp increases in AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other illnesses among MSM, after a brief period of decline during the AIDS panic of the 1980s. Despite two decades and billions spent in "AIDS awareness," risk behavior is again rampant; and not surprisingly, a disproportionate percentage occurs among youth ages 15 to 22.
Our public health officials now find themselves in the odd position of kowtowing to an identity group whose activists believe that in order to fulfill their identity they must engage in the very acts that health officials, and anyone with an ounce of common sense, know to be unhealthy. The only way to stop this madness is for our health institutions — in particular the CDC, the FDA, and American Red Cross — to launch an education program to inform the public of the high risks of homosexual behavior. Given the public mood, it’s not an easy course. But this is the solid reality. To continue to indulge in the popular delusion of the activist homosexual lobby will only further erode the public health.
Robert Seidenberg worked as a technical writer at American Red Cross Blood Services, National Headquarters from 1994 to 2002.
February 9, 2006
By Tim Leslie — Special To The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, August 7, 2005
Although gay marriage proponents saw their AB 19 decisively voted down this summer in California’s Assembly, they have used a rule-bending shortcut to advance their bill to the Senate anyway as AB 849. While technically legal, the maneuver flouts the legislative process. More significantly, it highlights a central tenet of the effort to redefine marriage: Discard any rule, authority or standard that does not give gay marriage proponents what they want.
Those advocating gay marriage often do so with good intentions, believing they are championing human rights. Unfortunately, their efforts push in the opposite direction. By discarding the foundations of human rights, gay marriage proponents ultimately work against those rights.
In California, redefining marriage requires tossing the vote of the people. Sixty percent of Californians voted in 2000 to protect marriage through Proposition 22. Legislators may pretend Proposition 22 meant something else, but to an honest observer the drive toward gay marriage shows disdain for the people’s authority.
Likewise, gay marriage proponents must discard Judaism, Christianity and every other major religion’s teaching on the topic. No doubt, some clerics willingly twist the clear teaching of their faiths. But as the vast majority of religious leaders confirm, redefining marriage would set aside millenniums of clear moral instruction.
Redefining marriage also demands dispensing with virtually every culture’s historic standard of marriage. Certainly, history has seen aberrations of marriage. But the overwhelming consensus always has been toward marriage as a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, one capable of producing and nurturing children.
In addition, redefining marriage means overlooking the vital complementary qualities of male and female in anatomy, psychology and childrearing. Of course, traditional marriages often fall short of what they should be. But even a simple understanding of sexual anatomy or the importance of both fathers and mothers for children demonstrates how gay marriage discards the beauty of human design.
Finally, redefining marriage requires ignoring the law written on every human’s conscience. Many would disagree, of course, and I respect their right to do so. But regardless of how Hollywood and others try to reshape our moral values, gay marriage discounts what we know to be right in our heart of hearts.
As in all of life, discarding fundamental principles carries consequences. In dialoguing with gay marriage proponents I often ask, “After allowing gay marriage, on what basis would you draw the line against polygamy between consenting adults?” I have yet to hear a real answer. There simply isn’t one.
Some gay marriage proponents understand this. Homosexual activist and writer Michelangelo Signorile describes the goal in the December-January 1994 Out Magazine as “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down.”
Yet here is a disastrous catch for those who imagine they advance human rights by redefining marriage: What standards remain once you’ve discarded democratic rule, transcendent truths, historic cultural standards, human design and even honesty with one’s own conscience? The only authority remaining rests on the whims of those in power.
Today in California, gay-friendly judges and legislators hold that power, and their whims could usher in a brave new world. But as the 20th century bears terrible witness, the whims of the powerful are no safeguard for human rights. If nothing stands higher than power – standards that judge its exercise and set its boundaries – we live in a world where might makes right. That is a dangerous realm to inhabit, especially for groups that have known oppression.
Opponents of gay marriage must unswervingly protect the human rights of all people, regardless of their lifestyle choices. For the sake of these rights, we must also stand firm in defending the bedrock standards that serve as their foundation.
About the writer:
Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, can be reached at email@example.com
February 6, 2006
Also schools should watch for new We Are Family video. (A notice on this has been sent out on this email list. ) Videos are scheduled to arrive in schools this week. I plan to contact my state school supt to find out AL’s policy on this, if any. It could be very divisive for our public schools if they start showing it. Betty http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=7633&department=cfi&categoryid=family ‘Buster’ Flap Raises the Issue: Why Not ‘Gay’ Parenting? 3/8/2005 When it’s all about the kids, the answers are not that difficult. By Robert Knight After the PBS program Postcards from Buster was "outed" for presenting homosexuality as normal to children, homosexual activists and their liberal allies began peppering the media with the question, "What’s so wrong with children seeing homosexual households?" The main argument used to justify homosexual parenting is that "these families exist." Well, of course they do. All kinds of households exist, but we are careful about what we show children because kids are extremely impressionable. A neutral portrayal of lesbian couples is not neutral; it tells children that this is normal and expected. It creates confusion in their minds over sex differences and what family life is about. "All children, whatever family composition they have, should see the full, diverse range of families," Nancy Carlsson-Page, an education professor at Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told Associated Press. "Otherwise, when they encounter a different kind of family, they’ll think that family is lesser, that it doesn’t count." By that logic, children should be exposed to every form of deviance imaginable, just in case the kids run into it. Why not show polygamous parents, or alcoholic parents, or promiscuous parents for example? Surely, some kids are raised in such households. The AP also quoted Joan Garry, a lesbian raising three children, and who heads the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which lobbies Hollywood and the media to show only positive portrayals of homosexuality. "There are millions of kids living in households with two moms or two dads, and millions of other kids who know those kids,” she said. "?. What would be the respectful, Christian thing to say to them?” Well, here’s a suggestion. I’d say: "All of you kids are created in the image of God and are precious to Him. And we respect you as we do everyone else. You need a Savior, and God loves you enough to have sent Jesus to die for your sins, just as he did so for our sins. Jesus loves you more than you can imagine. You’ll always have a friend and Savior in Jesus. And, by the way, that was a nice double you hit last inning. Way to go." To the homosexuals raising the kids: "You, too, are created in the image of God, and He loves you as much as anyone else and wants the best for you. Since we are all sinners, you’re no different in this important regard: Like us, you need Jesus as your Savior. "We understand that you share the universal human desire to be a mom or a dad. But not everyone is situated to be an adoptive parent. By your choice of a same-sex partner, you’re deliberately robbing children of growing up in a normal home with a mother and a father. "This is not about your parenting abilities or even about love. Adoption and custody policy should be about what’s best for the children, not what the adults want, however well-intentioned they are." Anyway, Garry’s claim is not credible. The 2000 U.S. Census found 594,391 households with same-sex partners, out of more than 100 million households. Of the same-sex households, only a third of the lesbian households had children, and about a fifth of the male homosexual households had children. So we’re talking about probably fewer than 150,000 children living in such an arrangement, out of 80 million U.S. children under the age of 18. That’s far, far less than 1 percent. Over the past few years, advocates for "gay parenting" such as the ACLU have floated the absurd idea that "6 to 14 million children are being raised by gay parents." That number appears to have been based on the discredited notion that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. A Washington Post article in 2000 noted, "The census is not a count of the gay population, because it includes only those in couples, which other studies show is about a third of gay men and lesbians." If the homosexual couples constitute a third of the homosexual population, that would mean there are fewer than 2 million homosexuals in the United States. Even if we generously estimate that homosexuals comprise 1 to 2 percent of the population, as many surveys indicate, the ACLU’s estimate would require that virtually every homosexual, from the gay bars of West Hollywood to the beaches of Key West, must each be raising three to seven kids. But numbers are not what’s really at stake. Mothers and fathers provide different, crucial things for children. It’s hard enough for children in a single-parent household, where a father or mother is missing. This is not to disparage the commitments or accomplishments of single parents, or even of homosexuals. But homosexual couples compound adopted children’s distress by denying them a parent of one of the sexes and then exposing them on a daily basis to a homosexual relationship (or relationships, given the higher degree of promiscuity documented). Many children who are adopted have already endured stressful or even abusive situations. They don’t need to carry another burden just because adults have a yen to be parents. The National Council on Adoption estimates that between 1 and 2 million mother-father, married couples are on lists waiting to adopt children. They are having such difficulty in the U.S. that they are seeking children, at great expense in Russia, China, Romania and other nations. There is no excuse for deliberately placing a child in a motherless or fatherless household by design, except under unusual circumstances. But what about all those "unadoptable" orphans? An estimated 600,000 children are in the foster care system at any given time, sometimes shuttling from home to home. Many of the homes are run by loving, dedicated parents. Others have taken cruel advantage of the children. At least half of these children are caught up in custody disputes. Other children become trapped in the system because of red tape and because of a built-in incentive: Every child garners a subsidy. The answer is not to put children into homosexual households but to reform the foster care system to enable more married couples to adopt. As for "hard-to-place" children such as older sibling groups and orphans with AIDS, more effort should be taken to place them in married homes. One group, Adopt America Network, specializes in placing these kids. Let’s put children first. Public policy on adoption and custody should favor married households so more children can have a mom and a dad. Educators should gently but firmly steer schoolchildren away from homosexuality, with its many documented health and emotional risks, not make them "comfortable" with it. And "Buster" – and PBS – should be more careful about where he takes his young viewers. Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization
How to challenge the misinformation.
Read this before you go.
As a teacher or student, if you are forced to participate in “diversity” or “sensitivity” training, don’t just sit there and let them spoonfeed twisted concepts through manipulative exercises and false information. Raise your hand, bring up the following issues and expose the real nature of what is taking place: they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior, even if some don’t like it and the responsible facts don’t support it.
It’s time to object, question and expose the truth in open and frank discussions. Here are some questions you might ask at appropriate times in the workshops.
For supporting references, see end.
Issue 1: Safety, Bullying and Harassment. What documented evidence exists to show that “gay” students are more subject to physical attacks than others- not including surveys of impressionable students? Isn’t bullying done for all kinds of reasons? Aren’t you including “verbal” in your definition of harassment, and isn’t this very subjective, i.e., what’s “harassing” to one person is just a free exchange of ideas to another? Aren’t kids who are fat or non-athletic bullied, too? Would this mean that, to stop that type of bullying, we need to teach students that obesity is good and physical fitness is bad?
Aren’t kids involved in homosexuality troubled because of the very nature of what they are doing? Drug abusing kids are also very troubled. Do we legalize drugs to make them feel better? Why can’t we just say in general that harassment and bullying are unacceptable, without forcing acceptance of homosexuality, which has many aspects (like high health risks) that continue to make it unsupportable?
Issue 2. Is Homosexuality Genetic? There seems to be an assumption here that homosexuals are a fixed minority group. There’s no conclusive evidence that it’s genetic, is there? Can a person go somewhere and get a test for a “gay” gene? Aren’t our bodies clearly built for heterosexual sex? Aren’t there lots of people who’ve gone back and forth, like movie star Anne Heche, former “partner” of Ellen DeGeneres, who recently married a man? What about bisexuality? Isn’t that clearly flexible and an obvious choice?
Issue 3: “Students Can Never Be Influenced to ‘Become’ Gay!” Are you saying there’s no chance that raising this issue constantly won’t influence some students who would never have thought of it otherwise to start experimenting with homosexual behavior and like it? What about those who’ve changed from heterosexual to homosexual– as all the mid-life changes we are hearing about–Gov. Jim McGreevey of New Jersey, for instance? Are you saying all these people simply performed heterosexually, without enjoying it at all, all those years? Isn’t human sexuality –for good and bad–more malleable than that? What about the pro-homosexual advocates telling our kids it’s okay to be “fluid”?
Issue 4: Health Risks of Homosexual Sex. What about the health risks of homosexual sex? Isn’t anal sex always high risk, no matter who does it, even if it’s with only one partner? Isn’t the human body really best adapted to heterosexual sex, which with one partner, can be done safely all during a person’s life?
Issue 5. Parental Choice. What about people who don’t want their kids to believe homosexuality is acceptable? Don’t they have the right to teach their children what they want to? What about parents who don’t want their kids to hear anything at all about homosexuality, pro- or con? Aren’t these people taxpayers, too?
Issue 6. Atheists Can Object, Too. Aren’t there some people who don’t have strong religious beliefs who don’t want their children to learn about homosexuality? So–it’s not just a religious issue, is it?
Issue 7. Is Homosexuality Just Another ‘Viewpoint’? As far as “equal access” goes, this assumes homosexuality is a viewpoint. Isn’t it a behavior, not a viewpoint? Would other known high risk activities like anorexia or smoking also, then, be viewpoints?
Issue 8. Ex-Homosexuals Do Exist. How can you say no one can change from homosexuality to heterosexuality? Are you saying it’s never been done? Can’t people change from heterosexuality to homosexuality? Why do gay advocacy groups like GLSEN maintain that students have the “right” to “explore” to “discover” what orientation they are? Haven’t you ever met people who experimented and liked it? Or experimented and rejected it? Aren’t humans a lot more flexible than you are saying? So–aren’t we influencing students when we ask them to accept homosexuality? How can you say there’s no chance of changing or influencing any student and that some students will just “be” homosexual?
Issue 9. Why are homosexuals so troubled in other ways? What about all the other lifestyle factors researchers have discovered about homosexuals, like much higher rates of alcohol and drug use and higher rates of mental illness? Doesn’t this just scream that there’s something dysfunctional about the person? Aren’t some (not all) major psychological groups just ignoring this evidence because they want to look trendy, and because so many homosexuals are in leadership positions on committees?
Issue 10. What about respect for those who disagree?. Isn’t it just another type of bias and bigotry to say that homosexuality must be accepted by students and teachers? What about people who know all this information, but come to a different conclusion than you do? Are you saying they are stupid? Isn’t that bigoted and prejudiced?
Issue 11.Adults Corrupting Children in Same Sex Interactions. Isn’t the risk of adults having sex with minors greater when homosexual teachers teach children, simply because of same sex activities like coaching, mentoring, etc.? Isn’t this the reason homosexuals were until recently forbidden from teaching kids?
Issue 12.Why does the Red Cross refuse blood from homosexuals? Isn’t AIDS in the U.S. still spread predominantly through male to male homosexual sex? Isn’t this why the Red Cross still refuses blood from any male who has had sex with another male even once since 1977? The FDA has the same cautions about giving/receiving blood. How can we in good conscience in any way say or imply this is acceptable behavior for students or teachers?
Issue 13. GSA’s produce more bigotry, not less. If we allow a gay straight alliance, won’t their discussions of “homophobia” lead them to form hostile and bigoted beliefs and feelings about other students, teachers and parents who don’t approve of homosexuality? Don’t you just trade what you say is one type of discrimination for another–at the risk of endangering students exposed to homosexual activity? And if this club wants to hold diversity days or days of silence, aren’t they acting in a way that discriminates against others’ beliefs?
Issue 14. Objections to homosexuality lead to violence??Are you trying to imply that all people who believe homosexuality is wrong are potentially violent, or potential harrassers? Isn’t that bigoted and prejudiced thinking that flies in the face of the facts that many people “tolerate” people who are homosexual without being violent or even impolite toward them? Isn’t it incredibly offensive, even shallow and childish, to use the term “hatred” to describe ALL disapproval of homosexuality?
Issue 15. Future legal problems for the school and teachers. Won’t the school face potential lawsuits in the future if students are taught that homosexuality is harmless and acceptable, and then later contract AIDS? What if an underage student meets an adult homosexual through a school function like a health class or a gay club meeting, and they begin a sexual relationship? Will the school be held liable for millions of dollars as in the some of the clergy abuse situations? Aren’t we obligated to give them either both sides of the issue, or not cover homosexuality at all?
1. Homosexual pressure groups like GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (www.glsen.org ) use surveys of students as their primary support for manipulating schools into adopting anti-bullying programs that defend “sexual orientation.” But these surveys are highly subjective and misleading. For instance, they will often cite a certain percentage of students who say they hear “homophobic” remarks regularly at school. The implication is, of course, that any criticism of homosexuality needs to be disciplined. Rude name-calling should be stopped for all reasons, but these suggested “speech codes” include finding common teen phrases like “That’s so gay” offensive. If schools did this for all the groups that object to teenaged chatter, it would cost taxpayers many extra millions, not to mention the “thought police” climate this would create.
Heart-rending testimonies said to be from students are also included, for instance, in GLSEN training exercises ( click here).
Purported adolescent suffering, however, does not justify school intervention. Students can be in angst over all kinds of things–major, minor, good, bad and neutral. It can range from their version of parent-teen disputes, to real issues of abuse. It can encompass immature emotional reactions to everyday ups and downs, to hard-core drug, alcohol or criminal issues. The point is, anecdotes never make sound public policy. That’s why facts are needed–not student opinions.
2. On the genetic question, some interesting articles from homosexuals themselves who argue against this, are at Queer by Choice.
Also, the conservative view, from
Culture and Family Institute
World Net Daily
3. A classroom exercise for students used for many years by GLSEN and others says the following:
“Each of us should have the freedom to explore our sexual orientation and find our own unique expression of lesbian, bisexual, gay, straight, or any combination of these.”
(“Tackling Gay Issues in School,” page 78, Bisexual Basics.)
One exercise for students also uses the “Kinsey Scale” which asks people to “rate themselves on a 0 through 6 scale of heterosexual to homosexual.”
See a full article on this at
4. Several good articles summarizing the research showing homosexuality’s health risks:
Family Research Council
The Health Risks of Gay Sex, CRC
7. On the issue of the application of the “Equal Access” law to pro-homosexual school programs and clubs, see article below:
8. On the issue of ex-homosexuals, visit these sites:
9. Here’s an article from the “gay” community, admitting that it’s now well-documented that higher mental health issues are seen among homosexuals. While their conclusions are different than the conservative view would be, this is still a valuable article:
12. On the Red Cross policy, it’s at Red Cross Policy
Here’s an article about liberal efforts to get Red Cross and the FDA to change their policies:
Red Cross and FDA
13. On the real story about “gay” clubs and what they will do to a school, see:
Homosexual Clubs:The Rest of the Story
15. A great paper on this is at:
Legal Liability of Homosexuality Education